Kerala High Court
Mily George vs State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 21074 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
1 MILY GEORGE
AGED 43 YEARS
11A-2 TOWER-6, KENT MAHAL, BRHAMAPURAM-PO, INFO PARK,
KOCHI-682 303
2 MEGHA ANEESH,
AGED 20 YEARS
11A-2 TOWER-6, KENT MAHAL, BRHAMAPURAM-PO, INFO PARK,
KOCHI-682 303
BY ADVS.
R.KRISHNA RAJ
E.S.SONI
KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA
POLICE HEADQUARTERS, TRIVANDRUM-695 010.
3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
INFOPARK POLICE STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI,
KERALA-682 042.
4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
INFOPARK POLICE STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI,
KERALA-682 0242.
5 BENJAMIN SIMSON,
11A-2 TOWER-6, KENT MAHAL, BRHAMAPURAM-PO,
INFO PARK, KOCHI-682 303
OTHER PRESENT:
WP(C) NO. 21074 OF 2021 2
SRI.E C.BINEESH - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21074 OF 2021 3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners allege that they are now being
constantly threatened, intimidated and even
subjected to violence by the 5th respondent, who is
the estranged husband of the 1st among them. The
petitioners point out that, as is evident from
Ext.P1, the 2nd among them was attacked by the 5th
respondent in 2020, while in the year 2017, the 1 st
petitioner's second child was assaulted by the 5 th
respondent causing injury.
2. The petitioners allege that on 06.04.2021,
when they were in a self quarantine on account of
the COVID-19 pandemic scenario, the 5th respondent
broke open their flat and created an ugly scene
there, which constrained them to call the 4th
respondent - Sub Inspector of Police, who came to
the spot but merely removed the 5th respondent and
did nothing else. They say that this has, in fact,
emboldened the 5th respondent to visit their flat
almost regularly and to mete out threats to them
without any fear of law.
3. The petitioners, therefore, pray that the 4th
respondent - Sub Inspector of Police, be directed to
take necessary action to stop the 5th respondent
from entering their flat or from causing them any
vexation in future.
4. I have heard Shri.R.Krishna Raj, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Shri.E.C.Bineesh,
learned Government Pleader appearing for the
official respondents. Even though service has been
completed on the 5th respondent validly from this
Court, he has chosen not to be present in person or
to be represented through counsel; thus
inferentially guiding me to the impression that he
has nothing to offer in answer to the allegations
made by the petitioners in this writ petition.
5. Shri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Government
Pleader, submitted that, pursuant to the Interim
Order of this Court dated 05.10.2021, the 4th
respondent has ensured that petitioners' lives have
been adequately and effectively protected and that
no untoward incidents have occurred thereafter.
6. However, in reply, Shri.R.Krishna Raj
submitted that the afore submissions of the learned
Government Pleader are not accurate because the 5th
respondent is still visiting his clients' apartment
without their permission and is causing extreme
harassment.
Taking note of the afore and since the 5th
respondent has refused to appear before this Court,
I allow this writ petition and direct the 4th
respondent to ensure that 5th respondent does not
come to the flat of the petitioners without their
permission; and that their lives are adequately and
effectively protected by him or his men on a
continuous basis for some time, and thereafter to
take appropriate action as and when any complaint is
made by the petitioners against the said respondent
in future.
Needless to say, the 4th respondent shall ensure
that law and order is maintained in the area where
the petitioners are residing without any breach
being caused by the 5th respondent; and should any
action emanate from his side in violation of the
same, necessary Crimes shall be registered against
him, leading to all necessary legal consequences
swiftly and quickly, without any delay.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/29.10
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21074/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE TREATMENT SUMMARY OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER DATED 11.6.2020
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE
1ST PETITIONER DATED 10.6.2020
Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS DATED 14.9.2021
Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS DATED 7.4.2011
Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS DATED 28.7.2021
Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
INFOPARK POLICE STATION DATED 7.2.2021
Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
INFOPARK POLICE STATION 3.3.2021
Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO 0228/21
DATED 22.4.2021
Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE WOMENS
COMMISSION DATED 2.9.2021
